Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. We have been saying since the very start that we're happy with the majority of the bill—even more than that, we're happy with 85 per cent. We are happy to support the changes around low-paid workers in feminised industries and low-paid workers more broadly. I am on board with this. I've worked in low-paid jobs myself. I've got family members who are in the paddocks and the factories. They're doing low-paid jobs right now. My partner works in aged care so, believe me, I know how hard it is to make ends meet.

I am here in this place because I want to make good laws that support people who are struggling, but I don't think this is a good law—not all of it anyway. This is good law bundled with bad law. It could be made better but it won't be. It promises things it will never deliver. I wish the government was right when it says that this is all that's standing between low-paid workers and a pay rise before Christmas. I don't believe that at all. That's less than a month away. We all know that won't happen. I'm sorry the government has made this false promise.

What also makes me upset is that the changes this bill is making go far beyond what the government said it will do. The government has pushed these major changes through in a really sloppy way. The government has been a little tricky. There are changes in this bill that they didn't tell us they'd be making; changes they didn't tell the voters about during the election campaign.

This bill will change how employees work with their employers on reaching an agreement about pay and other entitlements. It will change how businesses work with each other to bargain with their employees. It will change who regulates the building and construction industry and registered organisations. It will change how and when strikes can take place.

People have raised concerns with us about some of these changes. We were told that the wishes of small businesses and their employees could be vetoed by unions even if those employees aren't part of the unions. We were told that some employees would be worse off with the changes to flexible work arrangements. Those employees are on a good wicket at the moment. They don't want these changes but they would have to go along with it. We were told that an employer would be included in a bargaining process even if they didn't want to be.

These things don't seem fair to me. I don't understand why one side should have it better than the other. We shouldn't be favouring unions over business. We shouldn't be favouring business over unions. I think there should be equality between both sides in a workplace bargain and this bill doesn't do this. That's why we wanted the government to split this bill. We were happy to pass the 85 per cent, but there's a whole bunch of changes that will be coming with this bill that we wanted more time to look at. We wanted to look more closely at the concerns that were raised with us, concerns like those I just mentioned. Maybe we need all of these changes. The government certainly thinks we do. They think if we don't support it we aren't in favour of getting wages moving. Well, I don't agree with that. I'm in favour of higher wages, of better awards. I would be happy if the government used its power to make those kinds of changes as soon as possible. But I can't stand here with my hand on my heart and say that I agree with all the changes this bill makes. I can't honestly tell you that you would be better off.

The parts of this bill that don't work can be fixed but that takes time and it's what we have been denied throughout this whole process. We need time to get this right. I don't want to get something like this wrong. It's not just me. The negotiations on this bill have been hard. The minister will be the first one to tell you that.

I want to talk a bit about the process now because that's important too. The bill is 250 goddamn pages long and we have had just a month to consider it. A couple of weeks after the bill was introduced, the government put up 150 amendments in the other place—150 of them! That came to 34 pages. This means the government has asked us to consider almost 300 pages of changes to the industrial relations system in the last month. These aren't little changes. They are fundamental changes, and that's not the end of it. There will be more. The government will be putting up a bunch of other amendments that will get Senator Pocock over the line. I haven't seen those amendments yet. How am I supposed to satisfy myself that my vote is in the best interests of the people of Tassie—employees and employers?

I'm sorry to say it, but this whole process has been a bit of a mess. Why didn't the government just try to get this right the first time? If the government took the time to draft this legislation well, if it gave us time to consider these changes in detail, maybe I wouldn't be standing here saying I'm going to be abstaining. I cannot, in good conscience, endorse a bill that has been amended in terms I haven't seen—that I haven't been given the chance to see. I don't want to block this bill, but I wish we had a government that would work with us to find a path to back it—all of it, not just 85 per cent.

If the government had worked with us slowly and carefully, maybe they wouldn't have needed to introduce 150 amendments in the House, and more in the Senate. There are no winners here, but I hope the people back home know that I'm trying to do my best by all of them. It hasn't been easy. My hope is that these concerns that have been raised with us have been addressed through the amendments in the other place and through the amendments Senator Pocock has secured. I guess we will just have to wait and see.